REPORT ON STATUS OF FOA RIGHTS IN MALAYSIA 2013 – 2015 ILO CONVENTION 87 FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION AND PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT TO ORGANISE DRAFT MTUC STUDY.

REPORT ON STATUS OF FOA RIGHTS IN MALAYSIA 2013 – 2015 ILO CONVENTION 87 FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION AND PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT TO ORGANISE DRAFT MTUC STUDY PROJECT ON FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION OF TRADE UNIONS IN MALAYSIA LAW AND PRACTICE PREPARED FOR MTUC BY: ALFRED B. VENGADASALAM B. ECONS. LLB (Hons) CLP REF NO: AVBM/ILO/MTUC/2015/AV 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS NOITEM 1Executive Summary 2Introduction, Terms of Reference and Methodology Brief notes on Malaysian Federal Constitution ILO Convention No: 87 and 98 Malaysian Trade Unions Act 1959 Industrial Relations Act 1967 Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 3Comparative Analysis Between Articles of the ILO Convention 87 & the Malaysia Trade Unions Act 1959 and the Industrial Relations Act 1967. 4Factual Matrix of FOA Violations For The Period 2013 – 2015. 5Trade Unions / FOA Violations Complaints and ILO Recommendations to Malaysia 6Key Observations on Comparative Analysis, FOA Violations (2013 – 2015) and ILO Recommendations 7Conclusion 8Acknowledgments and Appreciation 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In this report which is based on an examination of Convention 87 (Freedom of Association and Protection of Right to Organise) and status of Freedom of Association (‘FOA’) rights in Malaysia for the period from 2013 to 2015, we have undertaken a study within a limited time of approximately 2 months to assess compliance with Convention 87 in law and in practice in Malaysia. In order to carry out the above task, we had undertaken an in depth examination of the provisions under the Trade Unions Act 1959 (‘TUA’) and the Industrial Relations Act 1967 (‘IRA’) and reviewed the relevant recommendation by the International Labour Organisation (‘ILO’) addressed to Malaysia by the Committee of Freedom of Association and review of violation of workers’ rights and trade union violations for the period between 2013 to 2015. Whilst we recognise the fact that the TUA and the IRA generally allows most workers to form and join trade unions but there are in place excessive restrictions on freedom of association. In this aspect it is pertinent to note that in Complaint by MTUC to ILO on 22 September 2003 (Case No: 2301) which is a general complaint on labour legislations, the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association stated that the general provisions of the TUA conflicts sharply with freedom of association principles and the combined effect of these provisions is that there is control at all stages of trade union existence and activities. The ILO Committee had urged the Malaysian Government to undertake reforms to the TUA. After undertaking an extensive study that there has been little change on the part of the Malaysian Government and the restrictions continue to be in place with further arbitrary decisions on the part of the administrative authority which makes the principles of freedom of association illusory. The Director General of Trade Union (‘DGTU’) has power to supervise and inspect trade unions, can refuse to register a trade union without giving any reasons for the refusal and can withdraw registration. Unions which do not register or have their registration cancelled or withdrawn are considered illegal organisation. The DGTU has power to suspend a branch of a trade union if he “is satisfied” that the branch has contravened any part of the TUA. 3

A fundamental restriction on the TUA is that it limits trade union membership to workers in similar trades. As such general unions are prohibited. The Government continues to bar the formation of national union in the electronic industry and nearly after 30 years of campaign for and on behalf of electronic workers’ by affiliates, MTUC and International Metal Federation (‘IMF’) for a national union for electronic workers’, the government’s response is only to allow formation of “in house unions” or “regional unions” wherein there is no express provision under the TUA or IRA for the creation of regional unions. Further the Minister of Human Resources (‘MOHR’) may also suspend a trade union up to six months in the interests of national security or public order. This is violation of the principles of freedom of association as only the judicial authority should have the right to suspend a trade union and not the administrative authority which may have vested interest in suspending a trade union. The IRA provides that a trade union must apply for recognition from the employer, who then can recognise the union, deny recognition or apply to the Director General for a ruling whether the members of the union are within the scope of the union. This provision is systematically abused by employers to delay union recognition and thwart efforts by unions to organise and collectively bargain. The issue of migrant worker being denied right to join trade unions seems to be exacerbated due to the unwillingness of the courts to protect their right to join trade unions. The migrant workers were already facing multitude of issues, ranging from employers’ withholding their travel papers and their work permit being issued subject to them agreeing not to join trade union or any sort of association and the unwillingness of the courts to protect the rights of migrant workers is a sad reality of the current situation in Malaysia. 4

From the ILO Committee recommendations over the years to the government of Malaysia, what is clear is that it echoes the sentiments of MTUC that the Malaysian Labour Laws specifically the TUA and IRA is restrictive and arbitrary and that definitive legislative steps have to be put in place to reform the TUA and IRA to bring it in congruence with Convention 87 of ILO. The only comforting thing is that whilst Convention 87 vis a vis the TUA and IRA are in many areas divergent but there seem to be a clear convergence in position on this issue between MTUC and the ILO Committee on Freedom of Association. As far as the terms of reference of this Study and Report, our role is to provide an overall perspective on the subject matter that is Convention 87 vis a vis the relevant Malaysian Labour Laws. As to concrete future plan of action to resolve the major challenges arising from this Report, and this has to be further deliberated by the affiliates and MTUC and should be drawn up subsequent to the intended Workshop scheduled in late October 2015 to look into coming up with firm recommendations and plan of action. 5

INTRODUCTION, TERMS OF REFERENCE, METHODOLOGY AND BRIEF NOTES ON RELEVANT LAWS Terms of Reference of this study and report This study is aimed at assessing compliance with ILO Convention 87 in law and practice in Malaysia. It is not meant to be a comprehensive survey but a review undertaken through secondary sources and review of Malaysian laws to produce a report that is expected to continue towards MTUC’s advocacy for reforms in labour law and policy to promote FOA at country level. Task to be carried out are examination of TUA and IRA and its compliance with principle laid down in ILO Convention 87, to review the relevant ILO recommendations addressed to Malaysia by the Committee of Freedom of Association and review of and collection of information on violations of workers’ rights and trade union violations for the period 2013 -2015. Methodology This report would be based on a quanlitative study. The materials would be gathered through secondary sources of reporting in newspapers, trade union websites and other websites that report violation of workers right. Information of violations would also if possible be obtained directly from the affected trade unions. In view of the limited time for this report, it is not possible to do interviews with the relevant persons from the trade union to gather their first hand experience of violations of workers right. We have been provided documents, correspondences and materials regarding factual FOA violations during the material period under study by the Secretariat of MTUC. We also have had access to ILO Reports and the cases of complaints of FOA violations from Malaysia and the ILO Committee Recommendations from the Website of ILO. Other sources of information and reference material related to the study is found as listed under References and Sources on pages 102 - 108 of this report. 6

Malaysian Federal Constitution The Malaysia Federal Constitution provides for right to form associations (Article 10(1) (c)). However this right is subject to clause 2 and 3 of Article 10 which confers on Parliament right to impose restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of security of the state and this restrictions could also be imposed by any law relating to labour or education. Whilst the fundamental principle is that the citizens have right to freedom of association and the exception on restrictions to be imposed by Parliament is only to be exercised sparingly, it can be seen that the TUA and IRA contains far greater restrictions than desired on citizens right to freedom of association which makes one wonder whether the right to freedom of association itself has become an exception. Convention 87 and Convention 98 (Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention,1949) Part 1 of Convention 87 sets out the basic rights of freedom of association of workers and employers. It provides that workers’ and employers’ shall have right to join organizations of their own choosing. It also gives right to workers and employers organization their own right to draw up their own constitution and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes and public authorities are prevented from interfering with these rights. Workers’ and employers’ organizations shall not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority and workers’ and employers’ organization shall have the right to establish and join federations and confederations. The law of a country shall not be such as to impair, nor so applied to impair the guarantees provided for under Convention 87. ( see Appendix 1) Convention 98 sets out the rights of union members to organise independently, without interference by employers (Article 1 – 3) and secondly Articles 4 – 6 requires the positive creation of rights to collective bargaining with positive obligation on each member state to promote that right and Convention 98 is intertwined with Convention 87 and both are correlated and reinforced each other. 7

Trade Unions Act 1959 The TUA covers the affairs of trade unions of both employers and employees. Trade Unions are association formed within any particular trade or occupation or industry. The objective of trade union, whether In – House or National Union is to regulate the relationship between employer and employees and in particular, to protect the right of its members. They negotiate collective bargaining to conclude collective agreement between employers and employees. They represent employees in Industrial Court in their trade dispute with their employers. As the TUA deals with principle of Trade Unions, Recognition, Collective Bargaining and resolving Trade Disputes, the TUA must be considered in all material aspects when dealing with the related issues. Industrial Relations Act 1967 The IRA is a social piece of legislation designed to promote and maintain industrial harmony and to provide for the regulation of the relations between the employers and workmen and their trade unions and the prevention and settlement of any differences or disputes arising from their relationship and generally to deal with trade disputes and matters arising. An important aspect of IRA is it affords protection to workmen who are dismissed from employment to file representation to the Industrial Relations Department and thereafter having it adjudicated at the Industrial Court for determination. The IRA also among others prescribes steps to be taken by a trade union to obtain recognition which is necessary for collective bargaining. Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 The Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 (‘PAA 2012’) reinforces Article 10 (1)(b) of the Federal Constitution wherein all citizens have the right to organize assemblies and participate in assemblies peacefully and without arms. The PAA 2012 does not apply to a strike, lock-out or picket under the IRA and the TUA. The requirements of PAA 2012 is less onerous than the Police Act 1967 which requires license to hold an assembly for which the police had power to permit or reject such application. Under the PAA 2012, the only requirement is a 10 day notification pursuant to Section 9.(1) and any violation of section 9(1) is an offence under section 9(5) and on conviction liable to a fine not exceeding RM10,000. However the PAA 2012 restricts public demonstration to enclosed spaces such as stadiums and halls as most public areas are prohibited as potential venues for assembly and street demonstrations are totally banned. 8

COMPARITIVE ANALYSIS Articles of ILO Convention No: 87 Convention 87 – Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). Incompatibility with Trade Unions Act 1959 and Industrial Relations Act 1967 1. Article 2 – Workers and employers without distinction whatsoever, shall have right to establish and subject only to the rules of the organisation concerned, to join organisations of their own choosing without previous authorisation. a. Under Convention 87, the right of categories of workers able to organise shall be interpreted widely. However under the TUA, there are various restrictions, such as restrictions on public officers joining trade union (see s. 27(1) of TUA), restrictions based on geography as well as by industry trade, occupation or establishment (see s. 2 of TUA). Further whilst there are no express provision under the TUA and IRA prohibiting right to domestic workers from right to organising, there are no trade union for domestic workers in Malaysia thus far. Migrant workers under the TUA (see s. 28(1)(a) and s. 29(2) of TUA) cannot hold office, but no restriction on joining trade union but recent Industrial Court decision seem to suggest otherwise. 9

Articles of ILO Convention No: 87 Convention 87 – Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). Incompatibility with Trade Unions Act 1959 and Industrial Relations Act 1967 b. Under Convention 87, there should not be any requirement of previous authorisation to enable workers to establish organisation. However, the TUA makes registration compulsory before trade union can effectively operate (see s. 8, s. 9(2), s.59 of TUA). There are various statutory powers given to the DGTU which becomes impediment to the establishment and the running of the trade union (see s.12(2), s. 12(3), s.15(1), s.15(2) of TUA). Even if after all the impediments to establish and register a trade union, they still have to go through the process of recognition and obtain the right of sole and exclusive bargaining right. Otherwise the registered trade union is nugatory in effect (see s. 9 of IRA) 10

Articles of ILO Convention No: 87 Convention 87 – Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). Incompatibility with Trade Unions Act 1959 and Industrial Relations Act 1967 c. The workers should have the right to join organisation of their own choosing, ie there should not be undue restrictions in the membership requirement to form trade union and workers should have right to join several organisation of their own choosing. The use of the word ‘establishment’ is used by the DGTU to register in house union as well as to register a national union when there is already in existence a trade union to represent the workers. This leads to suggestion that DGTU is deliberately trying to break up unions, ex, NUBE, MASEU. 11

Articles of ILO Convention No: 87 Convention 87 – Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). Incompatibility with Trade Unions Act 1959 and Industrial Relations Act 1967 2. Article 3(1) – Workers’ and employers’ organisation shall have the right to draw up their constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organise their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes. Article 3(2) – The public authorities shall refrain from any interference which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof. a.Under the TUA, there are provisions made for what must be included in the rules and constitution of trade unions (see s. 38(1) and First Schedule of TUA). b.There are various provisions under the TUA (see s. 40(1)(a), (b),(5), (7)(8),(9) of TUA) which in essence dictates how election of trade union officers should be conducted and gives arbitrary powers to the DGTU to inspect ballot papers. c.Further provisions under the TUA does not allow migrant workers to hold positions in the trade union (see s. 28(1)(a) of TUA) and office bearer or employee of political party from holding positions in the trade union (see s. 28(1)(c1) of TUA). 12

Articles of ILO Convention No: 87 Convention 87 – Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). Incompatibility with Trade Unions Act 1959 and Industrial Relations Act 1967 d. The DGTU has also wide powers under s.28(1)(d) of TUA to prohibit any person from holding office if the offence is in the opinion of the DGTU such to render him unfit. e. The DGTU has got wide exhaustive powers and he has intrusive powers to the core of the functioning of the trade union in handling its administration as well as financing matters and also policing powers. (see s. 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57 TUA and Reg 33,34,35,52 – 61 of Trade Union Regulations 1959) 13

Articles of ILO Convention No: 87 Convention 87 – Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). Incompatibility with Trade Unions Act 1959 and Industrial Relations Act 1967 3. Article 4 – Workers’ and employers’ organisation shall not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority. a.Under the TUA, dissolution done under voluntary basis must be by way of secret ballot subject to (see s. 40(e), 42 of TUA). This can be considered as interference by administrative authority which is violation of Convention 87. b.The DGTU has power to suspend the trade union or its branch if he is satisfied that there is contravention with the TUA or rules of the union (see s. 17 of TUA). c.The DGTU has power to cancel registration of trade union pursuant to s. 15(1) and (2) of TUA. Both the power to suspend and cancel trade union registration are drastic powers which are incompatible with Convention 87. 14

Articles of ILO Convention No: 87 Convention 87 – Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). Incompatibility with Trade Unions Act 1959 and Industrial Relations Act 1967 d. In the event the union has dissolved voluntarily they can proceed to use the funds as per the rules of the union subject to s.42 of the TUA wherein it cannot take into effect until DGTU is satisfied with the dissolution which has been done by way of secret ballot. In the event the DGTU cancels registration pursuant to Section 15(1)(b) and (2)(a) of TUA, then Reg 38 to 42 would apply wherein the unions property would be automatically vested in official assignee save and except if the union applies to wind up its own affairs, the DGTU may allow it subject to Reg 43. The dissolution is not straightforward and not subject to the wishes of the members of the union but subject to iron clad of DGTU. 15

Articles of ILO Convention No: 87 Convention 87 – Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). Incompatibility with Trade Unions Act 1959 and Industrial Relations Act 1967 4. Article 5 – Workers’ and employers’ organisations shall have the right to establish and join federations and confederations and any such organisation, federation or confederation shall have the right to affiliate with international organisatons of workers and employers. a.The provision under s. 72 of TUA automatically prevents large organisation such as MTUC from being granted the status of federation because the TUA does not provide for registration of General Unions. b.The provision of s.74(1) of TUS restricts a registered trade union affiliation wherein the affiliation can only be with registered federation of trade union representing similar trades, occupations or industries and subject to the provisions of s. 74(1) and (2) of TUA. 16

Articles of ILO Convention No: 87 Convention 87 – Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). Incompatibility with Trade Unions Act 1959 and Industrial Relations Act 1967 5. Article 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are enabling provisions to give effect to Article 2, 3, 4 and 5 of Convention 87. 17

FACTUAL MATRIX OF FOA VIOLATION 2013 -2015 RIGHT TO REPRESENTATION AND RECOGNITION CLAIM Right to Union Representation 18

Right to Union Representation 1.Rubber Products Industry – Shorubber (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. – National Union of Employees in Companies Manufacturing Rubber Products On 11 th June 2013 the National Union of Employees’ In Companies Manufacturing Rubber Products (NUECMRP), [having the right and capacity to represent workers in all industries manufacturing rubber products] served recognition claim vide Form A pursuant to Section 9 (1) of the IRA on Shorubber (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (Shorubber) located in Kangar, Perlis, Peninsular Malaysia, involved in the manufacturing of ‘Nitrile Rubber Gloves’. The Company employs about 1,500 employees, and about 80% of employees had joined the NUECMRP. The Shorubber refuted NUECMRP’s claim to be recognized as the representative of the employees in the Company on the grounds that only 24% latex is used in the manufacture of nitrile rubber gloves and under these circumstances Shorubber refused to accord recognition and the right of representation to NUECMRP. Since the company by their contention stated that their products is only consisting of 24% of latex, therefore the issue of Competency, whether NUECMRP is the rightful union to represent the workers. 19

This lead to a report by NUECMRP to the DGTU under the Ministry of Human Resources pursuant to Section 9(4) IRA, and due to Shorubber objection, the ‘competency test’ was conducted by DGIR who proceeded to unilaterally without the presence and participation of NUECMRP did an ‘analysis’ of the products of the Shorubber and subsequently notified Minister who then decided that NUECMRP is not the competent union and therefore Shorubber need not accord recognition to NUECMRP. And by a stroke of Minister’s pen, 80% i.e. 1,200 of the workers in Shorubber lost their Union membership and NUEMCRP was prevented from representing the workers. NUECMRP than decided to challenge the MOHR’s decision and applied for ‘leave” for judicial review, which was granted (we are not advised as to the developments at the substantive stage of judicial review at the High Court in respect of this case subsequent to obtaining leave). 65 The conduct of the employer and DGTU is in violation of Article 2 of Convention 87, which is right to choose your own Union without previous authorization. 20

2. Sabah Timber Industry - Sabah Forest Industry – Sabah Timber Industry Employees Union Sabah Forest Industry,(SFI) owned and operated by Ballarpur Industries Limited (BILT), part of the gigantic Avantha Group is seen to be stepping up union busting tactics. The SFI has since 1998 refused to respect workers’ rights to form their union, affiliated to the Sabah Timber Industry Employees Union (STIEU), by using legal and technical maneuverings including two Judicial Reviews to quash the decision of MOHR to recognize the union. Once again, on 17 March 2014, the STIEU filed another claim for recognition. In vain, SFI’s refusal prompted the Department of Industrial Relations to initiate secret ballot elections. The Department ordered SFI to submit the list of employees to be screened as eligible voters. The Union (STIEU) says that SFI employees’ rights to form a union have been suppressed long enough, and demands that SFI finally allows the conduct of free secret ballot elections; refrain from legal maneuverings in the inclusion and exclusion of eligible employees to vote; respect workers’ rights to form and join union of their choosing free from management interference and respect the results of legitimate elections. 66 The conduct of the employer, that is Sabah Forest Industry is in violation of Article 2 of Convention 87, that is right to join Union of their own choosing and Article 8 of Convention 87 which states that the law of the land shall not impair, not shall it be used to impair the guarantees under Convention 87. 21

RECOGNITION CLAIM 3. Electronic Industry – Carsem (M) Sdn. Bhd. – Electronic Industry Employees Union Western Region Peninsular Malaysia Electronic Industry Employees’ Union Western Region Peninsular Malaysia (EIEUWR), served a Recognition Claim on Carsem (M) Sdn. Bhd. The company is located in Ipoh, Perak, and Peninsular Malaysia. In the secret balloting exercise to decide the recognition claim conducted by the DGIR at the company premises on 16 th, 17 th, and 19 th December 2014, the voter’s name list consisted of employees on or before 20.7.2011. There were contradicting results as to the votes cast on 16 th, 17 th and 19 th December, 2014: Total votes cast = 2882. Union member: 2699 Non-member: 170 Spoilt votes: 13 For Union: 93.65%. Therefore the Union had a unanimous majority of workers in Carsem who wanted to be represented by the Union. BUT 22

However, when the votes are tallied in accordance with the formula provided under Rule 11 of the Industrial Relations Regulations 2009 on Trade Union recognition, the results was totally contradictory to the majority vote received in favour of the Union (93%) because the base number used in the formula is based on the total number of workmen entitled to vote as on 20.7.2011 instead of the number workmen entitled to vote on the date of the balloting i.e. 16 th, 17 th and 19 th December. Total eligible to vote per Voter List dated 20.7.2011 as per the formula under the Regulations were 6885, whereas the total number of workers on the balloting day were 2882. So based on the Voter List of 20.7.2011 the Union had only 39% membership 2699 union members --------------------------------------- X 100 6885 workers as per voter list (20.7.2011) BUT More than 50% of the employees in the voter list have ceased employment at the time the ballot was taken and there is no reason to return to vote. And a majority of the foreign workers have departed upon completion of their contract of service after 20.7.2011, besides the company also delayed balloting by taking the MOHR and the Union to Court to delay the voting process. 67 The right to represent and recognition has been violated and as such there is incompatibility with Article 2 of Convention 87, wherein the right to establish Union shall be according to the rules of the Union without previous authorization and Article 3 of Convention 98, that is ensuring respect to right to organise. 23

4. Sarawak Cement Industry CMS Cement Sdn Bhd, the Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Cahaya Mata Sarawak Bhd, a public listed Company controlled by the family of the former Chief Minister Sarawak and now Tuan Yang Dipertua Negeri of Sarawak. An in house Union, Kesatuan Pekerja Pekerja CMS Cement Sdn Bhd,(Union) was duly registered and its officials elected. On 13 June 2014, Union submitted claim for recognition to the Company and Company refused recognition. The matter was referred to DGIR on 7 July 2014, and thereafter Company suspended and finally dismissed on 9 September 2014 the Secretary of Union, accusing him of making slanderous remarks against the managers of the Company on matters relating to the recognition claim. On 7 July 2014, Company transferred President of the union to another company CMS Quarries Sdn Bhd on reasons that his services are needed. Secret ballot conducted between 11 to 19 December despite widespread intimidation including Head of Special Operations present at voting venues to stare down employees who come to vote. On 17 December 2014 Company terminated services of President on grounds that his services are no longer needed. On 5 January 2015 Company transferred 2 of EXCO members of the union to other companies within the group. Union has filed Police Report and also Reported to DGIR for violations of Section 5, 10(2) and 59 of the IRA. 68 The conduct of the employer is contrary and in violation of Article 8 of Convention 87, that is the law of the land should not impair or applied to impair the guarantees provided under Convention 87 as well as Articles 1 and 2 of Convention 98 which speaks of protection against anti union discrimination as well as protection against acts of interference by the employer. 24

5. Electrical Industry – Panasonic AVC Johor (M) Sdn. Bhd. - EIWU The Electrical Industry Workers Union (EIWU) sought recognition claim for the first time (first claim on Panasonic AVC Networks Johor (M) Sdn.Bhd.) on 12 th of February 2007. Secret ballot was conducted on 30 th of June 2010 by the Industrial Relations Department (IRD). 820 workers voted. 806 workers voted for the Union. The Union got majority votes in the ballot box (98.29%) but still the union lost its representation because the total eligible to vote on the date of the claim for Recognition (12 th of February 2007) were 2093 workers. The first recognition claim took place 34 months after the date of the recognition claim by which time i.e. 30th June 2010, a large number of company’s workforce had left including foreign workers whose contracts have expired and they had left to the countries of their origin. The EIWU filed a second claim against the same company on 30 th March 2011 but secret ballot was conducted only on the 27 th November 2013 again 34 months later, the total who voted were 738 workers and of which 731 workers voted for the union. The union got majority vote in the ballot box for 99.05% but lost because the formula of calculation used by the department based on the regulations, therefore those eligible to vote at the date of the claim of recognition i.e. 30 th March 2011 were 1477 workers and as such EIWU 2 nd recognition claim was defeated for reasons similar to the first claim. This is the second time due to incongruous method of calculating the voting outcome the workers were denied to be recognized and represented by EIWU. Notwithstanding the above two claims the union filed a third claim on the 12 th of November 2014, interim the third claim the Director General of Trade Unions had registered an in house union after EIWU’s third claim for recognition. Secret ballot for the third claim was conducted on 30 th July 2015 at which secret ballot 259 workers voted and 239 were for the union. Though EIWU got a majority of votes of 92.28% yet they lost because the formula of calculation was based on those eligible to vote on 12 th November 2014 which was 852 workers and this is the figure the Regulations under the Industrial Relations Act requires to be used in tallying the outcome of the votes. 70 The observation made in respect of Carsem (M) Sdn Bhd would similarly apply as there has been violation of Article 2 of Convention 87 and Article 3 of Convention 98. 25

TRADE UNION ACTION AND ACTIVITIES Trade Dispute and Picketing 6.Malayan Railway Industry – KTMB – Railwaymens’ Union of Malaya (RUM) The Union for workers in the Malayan Railway Corporation (KTMB) is The Railwaymens’ Union of Malaya (RUM), or Kesatuan Pekerja Pekerja Keretapi Tanah Melayu. During the material period that is from December 2013, RUM had been observing the administration of the KTMB under the new Managing Director who was performing badly with regards to work place human resource management, administration and operations of KTMB giving rise to safety and security issues affecting passengers and employees. KTMB had also engaged foreign consultant’s wherein RUM was of the view that it was unwarranted and unnecessary. Throughout the early part of 2014 RUM had raised the above mentioned Industrial Relations issues at the Majlis Bersama Pusat (Joint Central Council) meetings. Joint Central Council is the Union-Management Relations Body in KTMB. In addition RUM had sent 27 letters on the various industrial relations issues but there was no positive response from the management of KTMB. Therefore in furtherance of the unresolved issues RUM Union deemed that there exists a trade dispute between RUM and KTMB, after notifying relevant parties and authorities RUM proceeded with a picket on 9 May 2014 conducted after working hours outside the premises of KTMB. 26

In retaliation after a lapse of 2 months KTMB management unilaterally took disciplinary action on the RUM leadership, branch officials as well as its members’ and subsequently dismissed union officers’ and members’ including the President, General Secretary, other principle officers’, branch officials and members ( collectively 97 members) of RUM for picketing in furtherance of a trade dispute. RUM and its members collectively struggled and took various forms of steps and measures to protect and defend its rights against the unjustified, unfair labour practice against RUM officials’ and members who picketed in furtherance of a trade dispute against KTMB. Well after a year all dismissed trade union officials and members were reinstated. 71 The employer has violated Article 8 of Convention 87, which is the law of the land shall not impair or be used to impair the guarantees under the Convention and Article 1 of Convention 98 in respect of anti union discrimination and causing dismissal for participation in union activities. 27

7. Tobacco Industry – British American Tobacco – National Union of Tobacco Industry Workers (NUTIW) Eleven (11) British American Tobacco (BAT) employees who are members of National Union of Tobacco Industry Workers (NUTIW) were arrested by the police and subsequently charged at the Magistrate’s Court in Petaling Jaya, Selangor following NUTIW’s picket over BAT’s various unilateral measures to ‘Bust the Union’ using a Voluntary Separation Scheme (‘VSS’). BAT without any consultation with NUTIW proceeded to offer VSS to local senior employees who were to make way for lower paid foreign workers. While at the same time there was no reduction in work, overtime was in effect and there subsisted a large pool of contract workers in BAT but no VSS was offered to them. In addition employees who were NUTIW members who do not accept the VSS offer, BAT offered again a new job designation as ‘Products Specialist’ on condition that the employees leave NUTW or otherwise the employees has to EXIT BAT. Since majority did not accept the offer, BAT took drastic action to confine the employees in a room to force the employees to decide whether to accept the offer of Products Specialist or be Retrenched, an insidious maneuver by BAT to bust the union at the company. 72 The action by the employer and administrative authority and enforcement agencies are in contrary to Articles 2 and 3 of Convention 87 whereby workers are prevented from choosing union of their choice and interference by public authorities. 28

8.Rubber Products Industry – Ansell NP Sdn. Bhd. (ANSELL) – NUECMRP National Union of Employees in Companies Manufacturing Rubber Products (NUECMRP) was engaged in collective bargaining negotiation for the period 2012 – 2014 with Ansell NP Sdn. Bhd. (ANSELL) located in Melaka. After numerous collective bargaining negotiations efforts, yet many important articles of the collective agreement were in dispute subsequently resulting in a dead-lock in negotiation which consequentially lead to a “Trade Dispute”. In furtherance of the trade dispute the Union than decided to conduct a Picket. The Picket commenced on 27.8.2012. The Company in retaliation dismissed 10 workers including number of Worksite Trade Union leaders for initiating a Picket outside the Company’s premises though the Picket was held in furtherance of trade disputes. The dismissal of the 10 workers is now before the Industrial Court for adjudication and determination as to their wrongful dismissal. 65 The employers conduct is in violation of Article 3 of Convention 87, that is right to organise activities (namely picketing) in furtherance of trade dispute and Article 1 of Convention 98 which is against dismissal for participating in union activities. 29

9. Electrical Industry – Federal Power Sdn. Bhd. – EIWU Pursuant to a trade dispute arising out of a dead lock in collective bargaining negotiation between the Electrical Industry Workers Union (EIWU) and Federal Power Sdn. Bhd at Shah Alam, Selangor. EIWU decided to launch a Picket against the Company in furtherance of a trade dispute which picket was been held under the provision of Section 40 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The Company began a series of actions to interfere with the Union and its members by intimidating and instigating workers to withdraw their membership from EIWU. At the same length the Company was showing indication of forming an ‘In-house Union’ obviously with the intention to bust the National Union – EIWU at the Company level hence with the intention to scuttle the Collective Agreement between the Union and the Company. 69 The violations here would be similar to paragraph (9) in relation to Ansell NP Sdn. Bhd wherein there is violation of Article 3 of Convention 87. 30

UNION AND UNION MEMBERS PARTICIPATION AND ENGAGEMENT DURING ELECTIONS / POLITICAL CAMPAIGN FOR UNION RIGHTS. Trade Union Campaigns during General Elections 10. Transport Equipment Industry – DRB HICOM – National Union of Transport Equipment and Allied Industries Workers (NUTEAIW) During the 13th General Elections (GE13) in Malaysia, the Malaysian Trade Union Congress (MTUC) and its Affiliates including the National Union of Transport Equipment and Allied Industries Workers, (NUTEAIW), went on a campaign to extract commitment on trade union and workers’ rights from contending candidates Workers throughout Malaysia, including members of NUTEAIW in DRB - HICOM in Pekan, Pahang attempted to meet the contending candidates from all parties in Pekan Parliamentary constituency before election day. Apparently, on 3 May 2013, a group of 18 union members of NUTEAIW who are employees of DRB-HICOM submitted a Memorandum to all the candidates contesting and one of them contesting in the Pekan Parliamentary Constituency, was the Prime Minister Datuk Sri Najip Abdul Razak. Subsequently, DRB-HICOM brought disciplinary against the 18 union members employed in the two Companies of DRB HICOM in Pekan. 31

First, Hicom Automotive Mfg Sdn. Bhd, served show cause letters’ against 16 union members, and second, Isuzu Hicom Sdn. Bhd. to 2 union members, and proceeded with a Domestic Inquiry (DI) on 11 June 2013. They were not allowed representation by the NUTEAIW, despites appeals to represent them under Article 8 of the CA. DI was held in exclusion of NUTEAIW even though the Union has exclusive rights granted by the Company to represent the workers. The outcome of the DI was held in abeyance for 4 months and subsequently the Company terminated the 18 member-employees and the matter now is before the Industrial Court for adjudication and determination. The Union (NUTEAIW) contents that DRB HICOM has grossly violated workers’ rights, and the violation of trade Union rights to participate in the democratic process of Malaysia especially during elections in furtherance of workers and trade union interests. 73 The employer’s conduct is incompatible with Article 3 of Convention 87 which permits participation of activities of the union as well as under Article 8 of Convention 87, wherein the law of the land shall not impair or applied to impair the guarantees under the Convention and breach of Article 1 of Convention 98. 32

SUSPENSION AND DISMISSAL FROM EMPLOYMENT OF TRADE UNION OFFICIALS AND MEMBERS ACTING IN FURTHERANCE OF UNIONS OBJECTS AND ACTIVITIES Unfair Labour Practice/Victimization 11.TRIENEKENS (SARAWAK) SDN BHD – Waste Collection and Disposal Industry TRIENEKENS (Sarawak) Sdn Bhd, the Company is a State Government linked company that is a joint venture with a German Company to provide waste collection and disposal for the local council in Kuching, Sarawak. In 2008, the Company dismissed the President and the Secretary of the In - House Union on unsubstantiated allegations of writing a circular and/or having signed a circular and/or circulating a circular dated the same instigating and/or urging workers to boycott Trienekens (Sarawak) Sdn Bhd Family Day on 27 April 2008. The officials’ are duly elected officers of a Trade Union registered under the Trades Unions Act 1959. The actions alleged by the Company against the officials’ were done in their capacity as Officers of a Trade Union and under the directions and instructions of the Trade Union. The Industrial Court ruled that the dismissal was justified despite making a finding of fact that the officials’ were acting under the instructions of the EXCO. Application to High Court for Judicial Review was rejected. Appeal to Court of Appeal rejected and application for leave to Federal Court rejected. 68 33

12. CMS Cement Industry Sarawak – Kesatuan Pekerja CMS Cement Sdn. Bhd. CMS Cement Sdn Bhd, the Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Cahaya Mata Sarawak Bhd, a public Listed Company controlled by the family of the former Chief Minister Sarawak and now Tuan Yang Dipertua Negeri of Sarawak. An In house Union, Kesatuan Pekerja Pekerja CMS Cement Sdn Bhd is duly registered and officials elected. On 13 June 2014, Union submitted claim for recognition to the Company. Company refused recognition. Matter referred to Director General of Industrial Relations on 7 July 2014. Company suspended and finally dismissed on 9 September 2014 the Secretary of the Union accusing him of making slanderous remarks against the Managers of the Company on matters relating to the recognition claim. On 7 July 2014, Company transferred the President of the Union to another company CMS Quarries Sdn Bhd on reasons that his services are needed in that Company. On 17 December 2014 Company terminated services of the President on grounds that his services are no longer needed. On 5 Jan 2015 Company transferred 2 of the EXCO members of the Union to other companies within the group. The union filed a police report and also reported to DGIR for violations of Section 5, 10(2) and 59 of the IRA. 68 34

13. Airlines Maintenance Industry – Airod Sdn. Bhd. - Kesatuan Eksekutif Airod Sdn Bhd Kesatuan Eksekutif Airod Sdn Bhd, an In - House Executive Union (Exec Union) in a Company called AIROD Sdn Bhd (‘AIROD’) having obtained recognition sought to commence negotiations on their 1 st Collective Agreement with AIROD. AIROD undertook several actions to destabilize the Exec Union wherein among others AIROD had attempted to force the Exec Union to accept their proposal for Collective Agreement and when the Exec Union refused, AIROD stopped the check off facility, did not pay increments for 2009 to members of the Union, attempted to force the Exec Union to reveal the full list of its members who are to be given annual increments for 2009 and deliberately promoting the Exec Union President to the Managerial Grade and thereby to vacate his position as President of the Exec Union. The Exec Union pursued the wrongful promotion of its President and the subsequent wrongful demotion by filing a complaint under s. 8(2) of the IRA by virtue of violations by AIROD under s. 4(1) and s. 4(2) of the IRA. The Industrial Court after having heard the matter agreed with the Exec Union’s complaint and held under Industrial Court Award 1121 of 2014 that the so called “promotion” and “demotion” was unlawful and unfair labour practice and therefore ordered and directed AIROD to remove from the records the “promotion” and “demotion” of the President of the Exec Union. 74 In respect of factual matrix at paragraph 11,12 and 13 above, the employer is in serious violation of Article 8 of Convention 87 as well as Article 1 of Convention 98. 35

UNION BUSTING Attempts to Destabilize National Union 14. Banking Industry - Malayan Banking Berhad, Hong Leong Bank Berhad – NUBE Malayan Banking Berhad NUBE, a trade union registered pursuant to s.12 of the TUA representing non executive employees In the entire banking industry including Malayan Banking Berhad (‘Maybank’) since 1958. NUBE has been concluding collective agreements with the Malaysian Commercial Bank Association (‘MCBA’), an employers association which binds inter alia Maybank and its non executive employees. On 3 January 2011, the DGTU unilaterally registered an in house trade union to represent Maybank’s non executive employees (‘MAYNEU’). NUBE in fact filed an appeal to the MOHR under s.71A of TUA to cancel the registration of MAYNEU. The Minister did not respond or decide on the appeal thereby forcing NUBE to file an application before the High Court of Malaya by way of judicial review application to challenge and quash the decision of the DGTU. NUBE strongly holds that the MOHR and Maybank had committed various violations of laws and international conventions governing workers’ rights. Further 36

NUBE holds Maybank inter alia had done the following: a)Sponsoring and supporting the formation of an In House union. b)Facilitating agreements in favour of the In – House union contrary to Article 6 of the binding collective agreement between Maybank and NUBE. c)Preventing and intimidating NUBE officials and members from exercising their rights. d)Assaulting and battering NUBE officials including a woman official. e)Dismissal of NUBE officers ie, NUBE Vice President Abdul Jamil Jalaludeen and its Treasurer General, Chen Ka Fatt as employees of Maybank on 31 January 2012 contrary to the protection provided under the law. NUBE was not successful in respect of its judicial review application at the High Court of Malaya and they filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal and the Court of Appeal on 17 September 2013 overturned the decision of the High Court and allowed the appeal by NUBE and quashed the decision of the DGTU to register MAYNEU in Maybank and the registration of MAYNEU was set aside. Among inter alia the crux of the Court of Appeal decision was the arbitrariness on the part of the DGTU who completely failed to consult NUBE before DGTU made the decision to register In House union and DGTU, a public decision maker in exercising their discretion have the onerous obligation to act reasonably, fairly and to take into consideration all relevant matters which the DGTU failed to do in this case. NUBE had also filed a complaint of violations of Freedom of Associations and actions to destabilize NUBE to the Committee on Freedom of Association, ILO in respect of the DGTU’s registration of MAYNEU and the involvement of Maybank in the establishment and support of the In House union MAYNEU for non- executives with an attempt to destabilize NUBE. The dismissal of the two principal officials of NUBE who were employees of Maybank is now before the Industrial Court for adjudication and determination. 75 37

Hong Leong Bank Bhd The Hong Leong Bank Bhd (‘HLBB’) in early 2013 unilaterally decided to centralize its processing functions for Hire Purchase /Housing Loans at one location within Malaysia and directed 49 NUBE members/employees to be transferred and relocated at the hub far away from their home leading to disruptions to their families. At that material time, 49 employees were not agreeable to the relocation exercise to facilitate the HLBB policy to centralize banking processes which NUBE strongly objected on grounds that HLBB exercise of relocation was contrary to the current availability of technology wherein the workers can still operate from their existing work stations so that the livelihood of workers and their families would not be impacted. NUBE met with the top officials of HLBB as well as their senior management and had appealed to the Chairman of HLBB against the centralization and relocation of its members’ but HLBB was adamant to proceed with its transfer. A trade dispute emerged and in furtherance of the trade dispute NUBE commenced picketing against HLBB. NUBE tried to resolve the matter by conciliation on 27 November 2013 and 4 December 2013 at Ministry of Human Resources level but HLBB refused to compromise. NUBE decided to continue PICKETING but quite surprisingly in a rather expeditious and unholy haste the MOHR by 6 December 2013 referred the Trade Dispute for adjudication by the Industrial Court. At the same breath HLBB dismissed 27 of the employees who refused to accept the unlawful relocation /transfer order of HLBB. HLBB has further proceeded with an unprecedented legal action against NUBE to move an application in the High Court for injunction to restrain NUBE from Picketing against HLBB, far more SERIOUS HLBB was seeking for a MANDAMUS ORDER from the HIGH COURT to direct the DIRECTOR GENERAL OF TRADE UNIONS to DE-REGISTER the NATIONAL UNION OF BANK EMPLOYEES, with the object to BUST NATIONAL UNION Representing non- executive Bank employees. 75 In respect of factual matrix at paragraph 14 and 15, the conduct of the DGTU is in violation of Article 3(2) of Convention 87, as to interference by public authorities as well as Article 8 of Convention 87. Further both the banks in both cases are also in violation of Article 8 of Convention 87 as well as Articles 1 and 2 of Convention 98. 38

LEGISLATION INTERVENTION ON UNION Dissolution of Union 15.Malaysian Airlines System Employees’ Union Peninsular Malaysia (MASEU) MASEU was an In House Union established in 1979 and represents all non executive staffs and had negotiated 12 Collective Agreements with Malaysian Airline Systems Berhad (‘MAS’). The Government however passed the Malaysian Airlines System Berhad (Administration) Act 2015 (MAS Act) wherein the new Company, Malaysian Airlines Berhad (‘MAB’) which takes over from MAS will not be a successor company under the IRA and TUA. By virtue of this Act, MASEU cannot represent any more of its 6.000 members who had joined MAB and would be subject to dissolution by the DGTU. 89 The provision of MAS Act and the impact on the MASEU (Union) is a violation of Article 4 of Convention 87, that is non dissolution of the Union and Article 8 of Convention 87. 39

UNFAIR TREATMENT AND EXPLOITATION UNDERMINING UNION REPRESENTATION Migrant Workers – Exclusion from Collective Bargaining/Agreement Benefits 16.Paper and Paper Products Industry - Polyplus Packages SdnBhd – Paper and Paper Products Manufacturing Employees Union (Paper Union) The Paper and Paper Products Manufacturing Employees Union (‘Paper Union’) representing workers at Polyplus Packages SdnBhd (Polyplus) were in dispute over the 2 nd Collective Agreement which dispute was referred to Industrial Court. Out of the various articles in dispute one dealt with the application of the Collective Agreement to the employees in Polyplus. Polyplus took the position that all migrant /foreign workers should be excluded from enjoying the benefits of the terms and conditions of the 2 nd Collective Agreement on the grounds that foreign/migrant workers are on a fixed term - three year contract and subject to term and conditions of recruitment imposed by the relevant authorities and on a working visa. The Paper Union had vehemently argued the CA should apply to all workers under their scope of representation including migrant/foreign workers in Polyplus on the basis of provisions of the Industrial Relations Act, scope of work, definition of workman and industrial jurisprudence in this area of the law. Instead the Industrial Court accepted the arguments put forth by Polyplus and by Award No: of 942 of 2015 held that migrant/foreign workers be EXCLUDED from the scope of the CA and the terms and conditions therein. This Award of the Industrial Court has serious implications and ramifications, inter alia in respect of trade union rights and its relevance to migrant workers, migrant workers’ labour rights and many other related issues. 76 The situation of migrant workers is in contravention of both International Conventions of both United Nations and ILO, in specific the prohibition of migrant workers rights to join and participate in union is in breach of Article 2 of Convention 87 and Article 8 of Convention 98. 40

FOA VIOLATIONS COMPLAINTS AND ILO RECOMMENDATIONS FROM MALAYSIA 1969 - 2013 From 1969 to 2013, 16 formal complaints by the trade union affiliates through MTUC and/or through the relevant trade secretariats, ie International Metal Federation (‘IMF’), International Transport Workers Federation (‘ITF’) and other relevant secretariats have been lodged before the Committee for Freedom of Associations/Committee of Experts of ILO. The ILO Recommendations are as a consequence of analysis of the complaint as well as receiving and appreciating the Malaysian government’s response on the complaints. The nature of complaints and the recommendation thereto by ILO is summarized and can be found on page 58 under key observations in this presentation. The complaints and recommendations most relevant to this study and report for quick reference is stated herein below:- Case No. 618 (Complaint October 1969 by National Mining Workers’ Union) (Complaint subsequently withdrawn) and Case No. 965 (Complaint Made in May 1980 by MTUC). Both the complaints were of a general nature that is with regards to the existing provisions as well as amendments to the Trade Union Ordinance 1959 and IRA 1967 on the basis that the amendments were prohibitive and oppressive anti – union provisions which eroded the basic right of workers, restricts union activities and greater government and employer interference in the internal administration of the unions. Recommendation: The Committee has recommended continuously that the Malaysian government takes steps to ensure that the provisions to establish “First Degree Trade Unions” are interpreted in a “less restrictive manner” by the administrative authorities. The Committee further recommended that the government shall consider amendments to the trade union law to form “Higher Degree Trade Unions”. 41

Case No. 2301 (Complaint dated 22 September 2003 by MTUC). The Complaint by MTUC involves a general complaint on the labour legislation, as applied by the authorities, denies workers the right to freely organize and join organization of their own choosing and to bargain collectively. The alleged restrictions, prohibitions and violations include discretionary powers granted to the competent official as regards trade union registration and scope of membership, refusal to recognize independent trade unions, establishment of employer dominated trade unions and arbitrary denial of collective bargaining rights. The Complainant submitted a list of companies which objected to union representing members (around 8000 workers) which then led to DGTU ruling that the unions were not permitted to represent the workers. The Complainant also noted that even when the DGTU ruled in favour of the Unions, a number of employers had challenged the decisions before the High Court and the Court of Appeal thus denying the workers right to collective bargaining. The Malaysian Government in its response, among others, stated that the main difficulty preventing ratification of Convention 87 is that it would enable the formation of general unions, which might be led by persons having nothing to do with the activities or interests of unions, and pursuing political or even subversive aims. Recommendation: The Committee notes that the complaint raises various alleged violations of freedom of associations in Malaysia, with particular emphasis on the restrictive legislative definition of workers’ organization and the wide powers given by the TUA to the DGTU in this respect, as well as the extensive and discretionary control the administrative authorities can exercise on the internal affairs of trade unions. 42

The Committee concludes that in general the provisions of the TUA conflicts sharply with freedom of association principles and the combined effect of these provisions is there is control at all stages of trade union existence and activities. The Committee urges the Malaysian Government to introduce in the near future legislation to amend the TUA to ensure that all workers, without distinction whatsoever, enjoy the rights to establish and join organization of their own choosing, both primary and other levels, and for the establishment of federations and confederations. Further the Committee specifically urges the Malaysian Government to amend the TUA and IRA by (i) removing the discretionary powers granted to the Director General as regards the registration of trade unions and their rights to adopt freely their internal rules, including the election of officials, as well as their activities and programme of action, (ii) by ensuring that appeals lie to the courts against all decisions made by administrative authorities and that these procedures allow substantive examination of the issues raised and (iii) encourage and promote full development and utilization of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers’ organization and workers’ organizations with a view to regulating terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements. 43

KEY OBSERVATIONS BASED ON COMPARIVE ANALYSIS, FACTUAL MATRIX AND ILO RECOMMENDATION TO MALAYSIA Having had a comparative overview of the Articles of the Convention 87 of the ILO vis a vis important aspects of our Malaysia Labour Laws specifically the Trade Unions Act 1959 and the Industrial Relations Act 1967 and an opportunity to view the factual FOA Violations for 2013 to 2015, we therefore wish to highlight some key observations herein below: 1.Non Ratification of Convention 87 of 1948 by Malaysia. The Convention 87 on Freedom of Association and the Protection of Right to Organize was adopted by ILO in 1948 and since then has been RATIFIED by 153 countries to date where else Malaysia after 67 years of the existence of this Convention 87, Malaysia has still not ratified the same. 2.Responsibility of Member Country in ILO It is also to be noted that in our introduction section of this report we stated regarding the commitment of an ILO member country who has not ratified the convention and this is echoed in the International Labour Conference Report (2012) wherein it was stated “even if the member state have not ratified the Conventions in question, they have, on the one hand, an obligation arising from the very fact of membership in the ILO to respect, to promote and to realize the principles concerning fundamental rights which are the subject of these Conventions and on the other hand, can be called upon to provide explanations to the Committee on mandate since 1951 to examine complaints alleging violations of the principles of freedom of associations presented by workers’ or employers’ organizations against a member state”. 44

3.Non ratification does not preclude accountability By virtue of the fact that numerous complaints to ILO have been filed by MTUC and various individual affiliates example, EIWU, MIEU, NUBE and others since 1960 on the question of freedom of association and by virtue of this complaints records show that the Malaysian government is thereby forced to provide written explanations and answers to the complaints and allegations of FOA violations in Malaysia. This mechanics acts as a tacit and indirect means of accountability and pressure on the government of Malaysia. It may also give rise to unwarranted publicity and embarrassment at the international forum which may lead to changes and improvement by the Government. By virtue of the fact that Malaysia has ratified Convention 98, Right to Organize and Collective Bargaining which is directly intertwined with Convention No 87, Malaysia is indirectly forced to respond to any complaints with regards to complaints of violations of FOA. 4.Effect of Ratification In short the value and effect of ratification gives rise to wider and deeper commitment as well as accountability on the part of the Malaysian government because; a)International Labour Conventions are instruments explicitly designed to create obligations whereas recommendations serve to define non-obligatory norms which essentially have the objective of orienting national action. b)The member states that ratify the conventions should implement them through legislation. When conventions are ratified by the national authority for making laws [Parliament] they become binding international obligations. The member states upon ratification are required to submit reports to the ILO on both the ratified conventions and recommendations and the position of their law and practice every two to four years depending on their relative bearing on human rights. This also may enable the ILO Committee of Freedom of Association and the Committee of Experts to have an impact and effect the recommendations. 45

5.Positive aspects of Malaysian Labour Laws Before we advance further and take the gigantic step to critically analyze the incongruence and divergence between the Articles of Convention No. 87 and the relevant Malaysian trade union laws in respect of this study, we must admit and acknowledge that the Malaysian labour laws does contain certain positive enabling factors as well as protection for workers and trade unions though we know it still has shortcomings and much to be desired. Take for an example, firstly the Trade Unions Act and the Industrial Relations Act, we find just like other progressive countries, Malaysia under Section 21, 22 and 24 of the Trade Unions Act guarantees immunity to trade unions from criminal proceedings, conspiracy and civil proceedings for damages consequent to activities of trade unions in contemplation and furtherance of trade dispute. Secondly, for those who initiate and organize trade unions at their workplace and to where a union subsists and union representatives act and carry out activities at the shop floor in furtherance of trade union activities have protection under Section 4,5 and 7 of the IRA in respect of victimization and unfair labour practices (remedy provided under Section 8 IRA) including Section 59 IRA which carries penal provisions against abuses by the employer. Not forgetting that Section 8 of the Employment Act 1955 which provides that no contract of employment should restrict rights of employees to join, participate in or organize trade union activities. And finally Section 9 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 does allow to some limited extent unions to seek recognition to represent in their workplace as well as Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 allows unions upon recognition with restrictions to collectively bargain with a view of concluding collective agreement on behalf of the workers. 46

6.Incongruence between Convention 87 and the Malaysian Trade Unions Act 1959 It can be observed from the comparative analysis between the articles of Convention 87 and the Malaysian Trade Unions Act 1959 as well as relevant sections of the other labour laws only leads to one conclusion, that the Malaysian Labour Laws on Freedom of Association and workers and trade union rights is not congruent with the Convention 87 and they are in fact divergent in many areas, giving rise to serious concerns. A cursory review and for easy reference we wish to highlight the following; The objective of the Convention 87 is to ensure workers’ freedom to associate into organization of their own choosing. In addition, this convention stipulates that the trade unions will be autonomous bodies with the right to draw up their own constitutions and rules, to elect their representatives in full freedom, to organize their administration and activities and to formulate their programmes. The public authorities are to refrain from any interference, which would restrict this right or impede the lawful exercise thereof. While article five of this convention recognizes the right to establish and join federations and confederations and these federations and confederations have the right to affiliate with international organizations of workers, article 4 stipulates that worker organizations shall not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority. Whereas on the other hand a comparative analysis shows that a statutory provisions of the Malaysian Trade Unions Act 1959 would reveal that it contains extensive provisions to control and regulate the unions over their name, the scope of their membership, its size, and the composition of its executive; in addition, the statutory provisions stipulate what should be the objects of the union, control and use and investment of union funds, prohibit its political activity and prescribe conditions for its affiliation to federations and consultative bodies abroad, further the Malaysian Trade Unions Act 1959 stipulates that (a) not only the trade unions should formulate rules on all matters included in the first schedule of the Act (b) but also, the rules so formed must not contravene the specific statutory provisions governing these matters in the Act itself. The Director General of Trade Unions shall refuse to register a trade union if he is satisfied that its objects, rules and constitution conflict with any of the provisions of the Act or any regulations (Section 38(1) of TUA 1959). 47

Thus without hesitation based on the comparative analysis and the cursory review above we can say that the Malaysian Trade Union Act falls “far short” from the freedom of association envisaged under Convention 87. In fact by the provisions of the Malaysian Trade Union Act the “control” by administrative authorities over workers’ organization in Malaysia is so comprehensive that is from the inception of the trade union organization it extends to the internal affair of the trade union. 7.Control, Divide and Rule over Trade Unions Trade Unions Act 1959 is the Government’s principal means of control over organized labour in Malaysia: and the epic center of this control is in the statutory requirement of compulsory registration of trade unions. An unregistered union is an unlawful body to be dissolved. The compulsory registration under the Act forces upon the workers to only establish Unions under similar trades, industry, and occupation or within the specific establishments. The TUA Act does not provide any other structure of workers’ organization of a general nature and character. This restriction also applies to the registration of federation of trade unions in Malaysia which must also be according to similar trade, industry and occupation. 48

8.Interference by virtue of extensive powers of the Director General of Trade Union (‘DGTU’)under the Act Sweeping powers bestowed on the DGTU to register a new trade union of workmen and deregister an existing union provide the lever for him to exercise control over its internal affairs. For example, the powers given to the DGTU to refuse registration to a new union or deregister an existing union, if it is likely to be used for unlawful purposes is not only sweeping but in the absence of criteria determining whether a union is likely to be used for unlawful purposes is purely at the subjective discretion of the DGTU. Secondly the power given to the DGTU under section 12(2) of the TUA 1959 to prefer a new union to the existing one, if he is satisfied that would serve the interest of the workers is quite arbitrary since it should be the workers, not the DGTU who should decide whether the union is in the workers interest or not. 49

Finally it is to be noted that if the DGTU is to cancel the certificate of registration given to a union on any one of the possible grounds, nothing can stop him from doing so. Of course under the law, the Director General is required to issue a show cause letter before cancelling the registration, but section 15(4) of the TUA 1959 stipulates that the DGTU may cancel the certificate of registration of a union (a) which has failed to show cause or (b) which having shown cause, has failed to satisfy him. Instead of deregistering a union outright, the DGTU may suspend a branch of a trade union under section 17 of the TUA 59 if he is satisfied that it has contravened any provisions of the Act or its own rules. During the suspension, the branch union is virtually immobilized. Similarly under section 18 of the TUA the MOHR with the concurrence of the Minister for Home Affairs can suspend a union for a period not exceeding six months in the interest of public order or security in Malaysia. 50

9. Arbitrary Executive Discretion The enormous powers conferred on the DGTU to be exercised at his discretion is subject to appeal only to the Minister of Human Resources whose decision is final and conclusive. Though the exercise of discretion by the executive authority is subject to judicial review, it is difficult for the courts to intervene when such discretion is conferred on it by using phrases like “is satisfied” or “in the opinion of” etc. When an authority is vested with such discretionary powers to be exercised according to its subjective satisfaction, the courts do not normally enquire into the merits of a discretionary action: when a competent authority has the power to act in a prescribed manner when it is satisfied that given facts exists, or if in its opinion those facts exist, the subjective opinion or satisfaction of that authority is usually accepted by courts as conclusive. 10.Right to organize being Curtailed & Controverted Based on the factual matrix of FOA violations for 2013 – 2015 found on pages 61 - 78, with regards to right to organize and union representation, both National Union of Rubber Products Employees’ Union organizing work on Shorubber (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd (pages 61 - 62) as well as the organizing challenges faced by the Sabah Timber Industry Employees’ Union in organizing the Sabah Forest Industry (pages 62 – 63) owned and operated by Ballapur Industries Limited are clear examples where the right to organize and representation is denied by virtue actions of the relevant administrative authority and/or the employer. We observe that this is done by raising the issue of competency in the process of recognition as to whether the union claiming for recognition is the rightful union to represent workers in the industry. The administrative procedures and processes carried out by the relevant administrative authority gives rise to delay pursuant to an investigation by the DGTU under s. 9(4B)(b) under the Industrial Relations Act 1967. Observation on the Shorubber matter, the claim was defeated on the issue of similar industry as the administrative authority carried out competency exercise as to the content of rubber in the Shorubber’s products. It was further observed a claim of recognition can be easily defeated on the grounds of competency and scope of representation, there appears vast disparity in ascertaining the chemical content and percentage of latex required in the manufacturing of nitrite gloves, all these materials provided by the Company to the DGTU for ascertaining the scope. However in the absence of Union participation at the analytical level gives reason to suspicion as to the component of materials required at the manufacturing stage, and prevents the Union from rebutting or making suggestion to the DGTU as the competence exercise carried out between the DGTU and the Company without the participation of the Union. The DGTU’s decision was endorsed by the Minister and NUECMRP was denied the right to represent workers in Shorubber. 51

11.Secret ballot exercise for recognition – Denies representation & the right to collectively bargain. In respect of recognition claims by trade unions for purposes of being the sole and exclusive bargaining representatives for workers’ in the Company/Industry has been a quandary and total uncertainty for Unions making such claims. We see from the factual reports in the case of Western Region Electronic Workers Union claim for representation in Carsem Sdn Bhd, an electronic company in Ipoh (pages 63 – 64) as well as in the case of the EIWU claim in Panasonic AVC Networks Johor (M) Sdn Bhd (pages 66 - 67). Their respective claims were defeated even though both Unions had a voting majority. This is because of procedures and processes instituted by the administrative authority (“MOHR’) as well as the formulae in law under the Trade Union Regulations pursuant to the Trade Unions Act 1959 for the calculation of the balloting outcome. In short it could be said that the formulae is flawed as a consequence of which though you have a voting majority you lose out because of the formulae. By virtue of a flawed formulae under the Trade Unions Act and Regulations, both the EIWU as well as the Western Region Electronic Workers Union lost their right to represent the workers’ in both the Companies and the workers lost their right to membership to the Unions of their choosing. The key issues in respect of the challenges imposed by secret ballot for recognitions claims is as follows:- a)The formulae of calculation of the outcome of ballot voting is flawed. b)All workmen or any class of workmen in respect of whom recognition is being sought, who are in the employment of the employer on the date of the claim, will be entitled to vote in secret ballot. By virtue of this employees who have died, left the Company or who have left the country (migrant workers) are all expected to return and vote and in reality and in practical sense this is impossible. c)Thirdly, the administrative delays in carrying out the secret ballot exercise which in certain circumstances and in the case of Carsem Sdn Bhd and Panasonic AVC takes places 2 to 3 years after the date of the recognition claim by which time employment circumstances would have changed and the formulae fails to take into account of this. THE RIGHT TO ORGANISE AND THE RIGHT TO COLLECTIVELY BARGAIN ARE THE TWO KEY LIMBS FOR AN EFFECTIVE TRADE UNION REPRESENTATION OF ITS MEMBERS AND THIS UNDERSCORES THE BASIC TENET OF FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION OF ILO CONVENTION NO: 87. 52

12.Legitimate trade union action and activities – severe interference and preventive action by employer and administrative authority We have to acknowledge that for a trade union to function it must be free to carry out its legitimate trade union activities and actions which includes engaging in collective bargaining leading to a concluding collective agreements and to effect the same and in furtherance of trade disputes arising thereof, Unions have the right to picket and strike. But from the factual reports of the Railwaymens Union recent experience, the National Union of Tobacco Industry Workers’ experience in British American Tobacco and the National Union of Companies Manufacturing Rubber Products in Ansell Melaka Sdn Bhd and EIWU collective bargaining challenge in Federal Power Sdn Bhd found on page 70, shows that there is continued and greater curtailment and direct action by employers and administrative authorities to prevent legitimate trade union activities to proceed accordingly including trade disputes and picketing. We observe from the above factual reports that in picket initiated in furtherance of a trade dispute has led to members, union leaders and officials involved in picket to find themselves dismissed from employment which was seldom the case before. Even more intriguing and very serious and a new dimension is that of the case of NUTIW before the BAT premises in furtherance of a trade dispute, the police here on their own volition proceeded and arrested the picketers, both worker members and union leaders, subsequently remanded them in the local police station and charged them for breach of peace under the Minor Offences Act and released on bail. There has never been such a case in Unions involved in a picket in furtherance of a trade dispute and supported by the fact that s. 40 of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 which allows and gives effect to such “expression” of the Union and members feelings in furtherance of trade dispute. 53

13.Union busting tactics From the factual reports of NUTIW picket in BAT, the NUBE’s issue in Maybank and Hong Leong bank as well as the In – House Unions position in Trienekens (Sarawak) Sdn Bhd, CMS Cement Industry Sarawak and Airlines Maintenance Industry involving AIROD Sdn Bhd and Malaysian Airlines System Employees Union Peninsular Malaysia (pages 72,73, 74, 75 and 77), we observe the following unfair labour practice and legislative maneuvering by the administrative authority and employer respectively. a)BAT over the last few years have been re designating and re classifying job titles, for example, Product Specialist and thereby put worker members of the Union out of the scope of Union representation. The re designation and re classification subsequently went under s. 9(1)(a) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967 for the administrative authority to investigate and verify whether that particular designation Product Specialist falls within the scope of the Union representation or otherwise and subsequently in BAT’s case, the Minister ruled that Product Specialist falls outside the scope of Unions representation and now in 2014, BAT has proceeded with the exercise of re designation and those who do not come under its re designation, it has forced them to take Voluntary Separation Scheme (‘VSS’) thereby with an intention of not leaving an iota of members in BAT which would ultimately lead to the death of the Union in BAT. a) Another form of union busting tactics can be seen in the factual reports of the challenges faced by NUBE’s employees during the relevant period of 2013 to 2015, that is: 54

i.By registering and allowing the establishment of an In – House Union (MAYNEU in Malayan Banking Berhad) when there exists already a national Union representing the same scope of workers having a collective agreement subsisting at that moment and the majority of the workers from that establishment are already members of NUBE which has been in existence since 1958. We further observe that the administrative authority, the DGTU and the employer maybe tacitly, directly and indirectly contributing to the MAYNEU (In House Union in Maybank) by enabling the establishment, operation, activities leading to the strengthening of the in house and deliberately weakening the existing national union which would de stabilize the workers organization. This is a clear contravention of Article 8 of Convention 87. ii.Or the Hong Leong Bank making an unprecedented application to the High Court to obtain a “mandamus” order on the DGTU to de register NUBE. This is a very unique novel and dangerous development in respect of the future of trade unionism in Malaysia totally in contravention to the letter and spirit of Convention No. 87. c)In our observation of Trienekens, CMS Cement Industry Sarawak and AIROD Sdn Bhd that to prevent the Union from functioning and/or to scuttle the collective bargaining processes, employer has taken action to dismiss the Union leaders on frivolous and vexatious claims of misconduct as well as promoting the Union activist out of the scope of the Union. d)In our observation of MASEU, the government in introducing the Malaysian Airlines System Berhad (Administration) Act 2015 in particular provisions which states that the new Company is not a successor company has indirectly crippled the existing In House Union (MASEU) in Malaysian Airline System Berhad. This would mean that MASEU would have to obtain fresh recognition from the new Company and there is no guarantee that the new Company would accommodate to the formation of new Union in the new Company. 55

14.Trade Union and Union Members Participation and Engagement During Elections/Political Campaign for Union Rights- Leads to dismissal of Union Members From the factual matrix of the NUTEAIW in DRB – Hicom in Pekan, Pahang where 18 members of the Union went to give out pamphlets to contending political parties and candidates in the General Elections 2013 all done under MTUC’s instructions to its affiliates for them to get political candidates standing for election to support workers’ demands and the irony is the said constituency where the pamphlets were distributed was where the Prime Minister of Malaysia was standing for elections. Because of the actions of the 18 members involved in distributing pamphlets which was nothing political at all found themselves visited by show cause, subsequent charges, domestic inquiry leading to dismissal. At this juncture we must place on record that the Convention No. 87 is not against unions’ political affiliations and activities. It is interesting to note that Freedom of Association Committee of ILO’s has implicitly recognized that nothing should prevent unions in accordance with the will of it members from establishing relations with political parties or carry out other forms of legal political action in pursuant of the unions economic and social objectives. General prohibition on union engagement in political action as union members or union activist runs contrary to the letter and spirit of Convention No. 87. 56

15.Migrant Workers – Denied Trade Union rights and benefits of the Collective Agreement One aspect related to the freedom to associate in Malaysia relates to the situation and position facing migrant workers. According to Malaysian Human Rights Report 2014 pg. 84 says “this group of workers’ ‘Migrants” comprise at a conservative estimate about 25% of the Malaysian workforce. The Human Rights Report says according to government there are over 5.5 million migrant workers in this country with more than half are ‘undocumented’. It is common observation that the migrant workers suffer from lack of protection which has led them to be venerable to the activities of precarious form of employment, activities of outsourcing agents including human trafficking. It must be acknowledged and recognized that from the 1980’s the migrant workers coming from host of countries from South East Asia as well as South Asia are working in Malaysia in the most dangerous, dirty, difficult, and demeaning jobs in various parts of Malaysia both in the services, industrial manufacturing and agricultural sectors, contributing in a big way for the development of our country and nation. We observe while efforts are been taken to organize them, by individual unions, migrant support groups and the national labour center, MTUC but continues to be confronted with various challenges problems and restrictions. While enhancement of the right to associate and support for migrant to form or join unions would largely help protect them against extensive abuse to which so many are subject too and probably which will require proactive legislative and administrative measures which currently may be lobbied by the relevant stake holders, BUT the latest Award of the Industrial Court Award No. 942 of 2015 on the 31 st July involving company called Polyplus Packages Sdn. Bhd. and Paper and Paper Products Manufacturing Union (on pages 77 - 78) where the Industrial Court decided that migrant/foreign workers be EXCLUDED from the scope of the Collective Agreement and the terms and conditions therein. This Award of the Industrial Court has serious implications and ramification, inter alia in respect of trade union rights and trade union relevance to migrant workers, as well as migrant workers’ labour rights and many others related issues. Tandem to the principle of freedom of association and the right to organize is the right to collective bargain for terms and conditions benefiting workers in general and without this it makes nugatory and purposeless the right to associate and right to organize foreign workers. 57

16.Observation on – ILO Recommendations to Malaysia A cursory review of the ILO recommendations from 1969 – 2013 to the Malaysian government (found on pages 79 to 85) can be summarized as follows :- 1 st category of Complaints of a specific nature i.e. the case of AEU and ITF Case No. 928 / Case no. 2717 of British American Tobacco Employees Union and British American Tobacco Company as well as Case No. 2850 the National Union of Bank Employee and the Malayan Bank Berhad. 2 nd Category of Complaints is directed against the extensive, arbitrary and discretionary powers of the Director General of Trade Union ( DGTU ) with regard to his decisions as to the rightful competent union as to ‘same’ or ‘similar industries’ as in the cases of Case No. 879 (Complaint by Metal Industry Employees Union (MIEU)/IMF – June 1977), Case No. 911 (Complaint July 1978 by Electrical Industry Workers Union (EIWU)/IMF), Case No. 1022 (Complaint January 1981 – EIWU/IMF), Case No.1542 (Complaint July 1990 by EIWU/IMF), Case No. 1480 (Complaint in December 1988 – IMF/MTUC and International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU). 3 rd category of complaints is of a general nature related to the restrictive provisions in the Trade Union Ordinance / Act 1959 as well as the Industrial Relations Act 1967 under Case No. 618, Case No. 965 and Case No. 2301which in short complains against the restrictive and prohibitive anti- union provisions which erodes the basic rights of workers restricts union activities and greater government and employer interference into the function, activities and administrative of the unions. This 3 rd category complaints are the most relevant to this study and report as it deals with freedom to associate, right to organize and represent and to collective bargain. 58

CONCLUSION 1.It is clear having looked in detail the comparison articles between Convention No. 87 and the Trade Unions Act 1959 and Industrial Relations Act 1967 above (pages 8 – 52), there are various incongruence and incompatibility of Convention No. 87. 2.In respect of the factual matrix of FOA violations for period between 2013 to 2015 is terms of reference of this study, we sadly note that there in increasing violations, among others the arrest of workers exercising picket and charged under Minor Offences Act (the case of BAT) and also the enactment of Malaysian Airline System Berhad (Administration) Act 2015 which in effect had crippled the in house Union. 3.We take note that the MTUC in its Complaint No. 2301 to ILO in September 2003 had highlighted various incompatibility of Convention No. 87 to Malaysian Labour Laws. The ILO Committee had stated that the TUA conflicts sharply with freedom of association principle and the combined effect of these provisions is there is control at all stages of trade union existence and activities. 4.We have to commend the enormous effort undertaken by NUBE in recent times to highlight the arbitrary power of the DGTU to establish in house Union at speedy pace and the role of the employer with the intention of using the colonial policy of “divide and rule” to weaken the representation of NUBE. The efforts undertaken by NUBE was laying the complaint before MTUC and pursuing the matter before the ILO Committee of Freedom of Association and Committee of Experts. 5.We have also seen how in 2015, the passing of the Malaysian Airline System Berhad (Administration) Act 2015 which fundamentally destroys the existence of an In House Union which existed since 1979. It shows how the government of Malaysia by way of legislative maneuvering do away with the Union and the employees’ limited rights under the TUA and IRA. 59

6.In short there is greater urgency for all stakeholders to put pressure on the government of Malaysia to ratify Convention No. 87 immediately without delay. To this effect, we would recommend that in the definition of trade union under s. 2(1)(a) of TUA 1959 for the words “within any similar trades, occupation or industries” to be removed so that there is no impediment to the existence of 1 st level and higher level unions. 7.Excessive administration control and financial control should be removed from the hands of the DGTU and there should be independent body if at all to oversee control wherein right of appeal should be to the courts and not DGTU. To this effect subjective discretion of the DGTU must be removed. 8.On the issue of migrant workers we observe over the years that there are not only marginalized and doing dangerous jobs but completely lacking the protection and benefits as well as union representation and this has now become a bigger challenge by virtue of the Industrial Court Award No: 942 of 2015 (Polyplus case), by putting the clock back further as to migrant workers’ rights and there is now more dire need for them to join trade unions as well as for clear, significant and specific provisions in the law for them to enjoy the benefits of union representation, right to organize and the rights to bargain collectively. Having looked comparatively between Convention 87 and the Malaysian Labour Laws, specifically the TUA and IRA and the complaints by MTUC and its affiliates to ILO Committee and its recommendations as well as the factual matrix of the current FOA violations for 2013 – 2015, this therefore calls for reform and change to Malaysian Labour laws by the powers that be. Therefore it is incumbent upon us that MTUC, affiliates, NGO’s and Civil Society organisations as well as workers’ in general to work for the day of deliverance from the shackles of restrictive labour legislation and to develop a powerful workers’ movement with a status that guarantees meaningful collective bargaining in the interest of workers, employers and the nation. Only then would there be a climate of trust and transparency for the betterment of workers in Malaysia. 60

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND APPRECIATION We wish to express our appreciation and gratitude to the Malaysian Trade Union Congress for appointing us to do this Study and Report and our special thanks to the Secretary General, Mr. N. Gopal Kishnam and his Secretariat for their immense support by providing us information and materials to enable us in preparing this documentation. We also wish to express our thanks to the Freedom of Association (FOA) Committee of MTUC especially the Chairman, Mr. J. Solomon and the FOA Committee Secretary Mr.K.Somasundram and the members of the FOA Committee for their contribution in preparation of this document. We wish to place on record our special thanks to Mr. Arun Kumar of ILO – ACTRAV for his guidance in the preparation of this documents and finally this document would not have been possible if not for the assistance and contribution of Mr A.Arjunan, trade union activist and industrial relations social security practitioner and Mr Arun Kumar Kanesin, legal practitioner whose background is labour and industrial relations advocacy, both of whom are members of the Labour and Development Studies Resource Network under SFTCDO of 2012, to both of whom I am deeply indebted for their participation, assistance and contribution in enabling me to prepare this Study and Report. 61 MTUC STUDY PROJECT ON FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION OF TRADE UNIONS IN MALAYSIA LAW AND PRACTICE PREPARED FOR MTUC BY: ALFRED B. VENGADASALAM B. ECONS. LLB (Hons) CLP REF NO: AVBM/ILO/MTUC/2015/AV

REPORT ON STATUS OF FOA RIGHTS IN MALAYSIA 2013 – 2015 ILO CONVENTION 87 FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION AND PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT TO ORGANISE DRAFT MTUC STUDY.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "REPORT ON STATUS OF FOA RIGHTS IN MALAYSIA 2013 – 2015 ILO CONVENTION 87 FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION AND PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT TO ORGANISE DRAFT MTUC STUDY."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

REPORT ON STATUS OF FOA RIGHTS IN MALAYSIA 2013 – 2015 ILO CONVENTION 87 FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION AND PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT TO ORGANISE DRAFT MTUC STUDY.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "REPORT ON STATUS OF FOA RIGHTS IN MALAYSIA 2013 – 2015 ILO CONVENTION 87 FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION AND PROTECTION OF THE RIGHT TO ORGANISE DRAFT MTUC STUDY."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback